[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
Folks, It seems there's still some indecision about whether the <l> and <span> elements should be included in the structural model. For me, it's clear: the line element (<l>) is an important element that satisfies a specific need unmet by XHTML 1.1. The <br/> element of course does not encapsulate at all and needed to be replaced. The user's intent is still crystal clear, to preface some content with a new line. We also have an unambiguos requirement for numbering the lines of text in a contract, We need markup to do that. The <l> element was established by XHTML 2.0 for exactly this purpose. This has nothing to do with lines on a page in a document, a styling concern. As for the <span> element, as for the <div> element, it is not much more than the equivalent of a so-called "add-in" element. The <span> element is an add-in in-line element, and the<div> element is an add-in block element. Remember, we have the same functional 'add-in' requirements as TBL had when he designed the <div> and <span> elements in HTML 1.0. some years ago. Rolly has mentioned 'add-in' requirements several times with regard to marking up functionally named strings of text. The <span> and <div> elements, together with the @property attribute, serve precisely this purpose for XHTML 2.0 streams. It seems overly-analytic to exclude the <l> and <span> elements from our structural model, for reason of some ambiguity in some situations. I take them as given, and will program my applications accordingly, while being thankful for their wide deployment through the auspices of XHTML 2.0. John
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]